Design Excellence Policies and Procedures...9.4.11 Initial Oral Presentation: Technical Equipment and Support ... However, the Design Excellence Policies and Procedures, as ... Some

Chapter 9, page 1 of 20

Chapter 9

DesignBuild

February 1, 2016

Design Excellence Policies and Procedures

Table of Contents

Chapter 9: DesignBuild 9.0 INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, AND APPLICABILITY

9.0.1 Applicability

9.1 BASIC FRAMEWORK 9.1.1 Planning Prior to Release of the PreSolicitation Announcement 9.1.2 PBS P100 Requirements for DesignBuild 9.1.3 Incentives

9.2 ANNOUNCING THE OPPORTUNITY 9.2.1 Industry Exchange 9.2.2 The PreSolicitation Announcement 9.2.3 Articulate Design Excellence Goals 9.2.4 Describe the Project 9.2.5 Describe the TwoPhase, DesignBuild Process 9.2.6 PreProposal Conference

9.3 PHASE 1 9.3.1 Overview 9.3.2 Goal 9.3.3 Maximum Number of Highly Qualified Offerors 9.3.4 Announcing the ShortList 9.3.5 Phase 1 Evaluation Panel 9.3.6 Makeup of the Evaluation Panel 9.3.7 Mandatory Voting Members 9.3.8 Mandatory Nonvoting Peer Advisor 9.3.9 Suggested Nonvoting Advisors 9.3.10 Mandatory Evaluation Factors

9.4 PHASE 2 9.4.1 Overview 9.4.2 Special Pricing Considerations 9.4.3 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 9.4.4 SSEB Makeup 9.4.5 Mandatory Evaluation Criteria 9.4.6 Stipend 9.4.7 Discussions – Oral Presentations 9.4.8 Initial Oral Presentation: Scope and Content 9.4.9 Initial Oral Presentation: Participants and Agenda 9.4.10 Initial Oral Presentation: Timing and Scheduling 9.4.11 Initial Oral Presentation: Technical Equipment and Support 9.4.12 Initial Oral Presentation: Recording 9.4.13 Initial Oral Presentation: Written Materials


9.4.14 Initial Oral Presentation: No Scoring or Evaluation 9.4.15 Submission of Technical and Price Proposals 9.4.16 Peer Review #1 and SME Review of the Technical Proposal 9.4.17 SSEB Review of Phase 2 Technical Proposals 9.4.18 Phase 2 Second Oral Presentation 9.4.19 Concluding the Evaluations

9.5 ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES GOVERNING PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2

9.6 PEER ADVISORS 9.6.1 Evaluation and Source Selection Process 9.6.2 Post Award Peer Reviews

9.7 MISCELLANEOUS POST AWARD ACTIVITIES 9.7.1 Minimum Performance Criteria Checklist 9.7.2 Integrated Design Review(s) 9.7.3 Project Readiness Checklist 9.7.4 SME Rolling Reviews 9.7.5 Commissioner’s Presentation & Chief Architect Approval Letter

and/or Qualifications 9.7.6 Construction Excellence Peer Review

Appendices A Interactions Matrix

B PreSolicitation Announcement

C1 Early Exchange with Industry, Agenda Phase 2 PreProposal Mtg C2 Phase 2, Agenda PreSubmittal Mtg LACT Example D Phase 1 Evaluation Factors, Standards for Evaluation, and

factor/subfactor weighting E Initial Oral Presentation Procedures F Second Oral Presentation Procedures

G Phase 2 Source Selection Factors, Standards for Evaluation, and factor/subfactor weighting

H P100 DB Phase 2 Design Concept Submission Requirements I Omitted J Timeline Template


Chapter 9: DesignBuild

9.0 INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, AND APPLICABILITY

When GSA issued the first edition of its cuttingedge Design Excellence Policies and Procedures in 1994, the Federal Government rarely used the DesignBuild (DB) delivery method. Instead, most construction projects used the designbidbuild model and the Government procured the services of an A/E firm pursuant to the Brooks Act and its implementing regulations. Since that original publication, the use of DB in the Federal Government has expanded considerably, especially at GSA. One reason is that Congress passed legislation to provide special rules and procedures for acquiring DB services. Similarly, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was updated to account for the new procedures. However, the Design Excellence Policies and Procedures, as originally drafted and in its current form, have never been formally updated to account for the everincreasing use of DB as a delivery method and, more importantly, for how GSA, as an agency charged with ensuring excellence of architecture and design (see, e.g., 40 U.S.C. 3303(d)), will meld the ideas and concepts underlying Design Excellence (DE) into DB. Accordingly, the purpose of this new Chapter is to provide cohesive, uniform policies and procedures for use on an enterprisewide basis to achieve DE while realizing the benefits of the DB delivery method.

While much literature exists to explain the DB process and its advantages and disadvantages over other delivery methods, a few introductory points are necessary. DB is a method to deliver a project in which the owner contracts with a single entity (commonly referred to as the designbuilder) to provide design and construction services. In contrast to designbidbuild where GSA awards separate contracts to the A/E firm and construction contractor, DB relies on a single point of responsibility and, accordingly can help to minimize risks, foster innovative design and construction solutions, better manage cost, and reduce projectrelated delays. DB does, however, limit GSA’s ability to exercise fullcontrol over the design process. Although the outcomes are contractually defined by a mixture of performance and prescriptive specifications, the path to achieve the outcome is primarily left to the DB.

In drafting this new Chapter, GSA assembled a team of inhouse experts in the fields of architecture, construction, and contracting. In addition, GSA performed outreach to various industry partners and other executive branch agencies that rely on DB as a delivery model. Some of the highlights of this Chapter include the following, which represent what GSA believes are consistent with leading bestpractices across government and private industry:

● Stipends: Shall be paid based on a sliding scale to unsuccessful Offerors that advance to Phase 2. Stipends increase competition and the likelihood of attracting highquality DB teams.

● Publishing the ShortList (after the completion of Phase 1): Increases opportunity for small and midsized architectural, construction, and


engineering firms to partner or subcontract with the larger firms that are often selected to proceed to Phase 2.

● ShortListing to Three Firms: Becomes the default standard; increases competition and increases the likelihood of attracting highquality DB teams, which increases the likelihood of achieving DE.

● Phase 1: Places a greater emphasis on selecting the right teams to move to Phase 2; shifts the selection of key personnel to Phase 2 in order to receive a more accurate list of individuals who will be assigned to the project and to avoid “tying up” those individuals during a lengthy procurement process.

● Phase 2: Places a greater emphasis on the concept submission and key personnel; allows for multiple rounds of discussions, Peer and Subject Matter Expert reviews, and oral presentations.

Section 9.0.1 Applicability This Chapter describes Design Excellence Policies and Procedures for the DB delivery of selected capital projects. The Chief Architect will select all projects that will be required to comply with the Design Excellence Policies and Procedures. All capital projects are eligible for consideration including new construction, major modernization, R&A, limited scope system replacement, and projects performed via Reimbursable Work Authorization (even if fully funded by the customer agency). Upon the Chief Architect’s selection, the project shall comply with this Chapter.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Chapter applies to task or delivery orders to be placed under an indefinitedelivery contract.

However, this Chapter does not specifically apply to designbuildbridging (Bridging). That being stated, many of the underlying theories and concepts are useful for the planning and delivery of a Bridging project. Moreover, if the Chief Architect selects a Bridging project into the Design Excellence program, the Regional Commissioner must, at a minimum, obtain the written approval from the Assistant Commissioner for Project Delivery and the Chief Architect of all of the following:

• Overall acquisition strategy for the project; • Process for selecting the bridging A/E firm; • Method for selecting the general contractor (a/k/a the design builder); • All evaluation factors (price and technical) to be used in selecting any A/E firm and general contractor; and,

• Composition of any evaluation panels or boards.

9.1 BASIC FRAMEWORK In order to understand how to merge Design Excellence and DB, it is first important to set forth the way in which A/E services are procured. In 1972 Congress passed the Brooks Act, which established the statutory requirement to utilize a qualificationbased selection (QBS) process for A/E contracting. The Brooks Act is currently codified


at 40 U.S.C. §§ 11011104 and implemented through regulations found at FAR Subpart 36.6 and General Services Acquisition Manual Subpart 536.6.

When acquiring DB services, Executive branch agencies typically follow the twophase DB selection procedures authorized by 41 U.S.C. § 3309 and the implementing regulations at FAR 36.3. In this twophase process, Phase 1 establishes a procedure that is akin to the QBS found in the Brooks Act. No price evaluation occurs during Phase 1 and, in fact, no pricing is even submitted. After evaluating the Phase 1 proposals, the contracting officer (CO) selects no more than five of the most highly rated Offerors to proceed to Phase 2. It is important to note that, unlike Phase 2, Phase 1 is not governed by FAR Part 15 and all of its associated rules and procedures. Rather, Phase 1 sets up a rather unique method that affords a great deal of flexibility for agencies to craft an evaluation process that will enable them to select the most highly qualified Offerors to proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2 is essentially conducted as a FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement.

By regulation, the CO is charged with selecting the most highly qualified Offerors during Phase 1. During Phase 2, because it is conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15, the CO is designated as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) (see FAR 15.303(a)). This is a bit different than an A/E procurement conducted under the Brooks Act and FAR 36.6 because, in accordance with internal delegations of authority, the Regional Commissioner (RC) for the Public Buildings Service (PBS) serves as the selection official in a Brooks Act procurement. Nevertheless, regardless of the approach used, the Office of the Chief Architect (OCA) will participate in a substantive manner during the selection of a design builder. As noted in this Chapter, the OCA will play a crucial role in ensuring that Design Excellence is incorporated into DB projects.

It is with this underlying statutory and regulatory framework in which GSA developed the policies and procedures contained in this Chapter.

9.1.1 Planning Prior to Release of the PreSolicitation Announcement Incorporating Design Excellence into any project begins in the early stages and continues on through the life cycle of the project. OCA supports every capital project with national peer(s) and/or with GSA expert(s) from across the country to serve as advisors to selection panels and to support the project team with independent peer reviews. It is crucial for acquisition, design, construction, budget, and legal to engage early in the acquisition process to discuss roles, responsibilities, and schedule. For additional information about preplanning processes, refer to https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odcpolicyandprocedures/home/roco.

In regards to schedule, the PM shall develop a project schedule at least 90 days in advance of posting the presolicitation announcement in FedBizOpps so that Peers and/or SMEs can be selected to participate in major project milestones such as:

● Voting and nonvoting advisors to the Phase 1 Evaluation Panel;


https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odc�policy�and�procedures/home/roco

9.1.3 Incentives

● Voting and nonvoting advisors to the Phase 2 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB); and

● Post Award Peer Reviews.

A Roles & Responsibility Matrix is included in appendix A (Interactions Matrix). Activities are organized sequentially and list the personnel who should participate at each significant milestone.

9.1.2 PBSP100 Requirements for Design Build All submissions must comply with the prescriptive requirement and baseline performance requirements of the PBSP100, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service. As part of the planning process, project teams must establish the minimum performance requirements and discuss whether opportunities exist for performance enhancements to the baseline that further the mission, sustainability, and cost of ownership for the specific facility and for the GSA portfolio in general.

Any anticipated departures from the minimum requirements of the PBSP100 must be provided in writing by the project team and approved by the Chief Architect and the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Project Delivery prior to submission of Phase 2 proposals. The contracting officer must include any such departure in the initial Phase 2 RFP or as an amendment.

The project team should consider whether to include incentives in the Phase 2 RFP. Any such incentives must comply with FAR Subpart 16.4 and any other applicable regulations or internal policies such as the GSAM. The following are incentives that have been used on prior projects:

● Energy Performance: The objective is to ensure that the completed project delivers on its energy performance requirement through a systematic measurement and verification process throughout the first year of operation.

● Schedule: For projects in which schedule is of paramount importance (e.g., consolidating agency from leased to owned and holdovers are a concern), an award fee might incentive a contractor to strive for an earlier than projected substantial completion date.

ODC is working with the Office of Acquisition Management to develop sample Award Fee Plans and to update the DB contract templates.

9.2 ANNOUNCING THE OPPORTUNITY

9.2.1 Exchanges with Industry Prior to issuing the presolicitation announcement, for large or technically complex projects, teams should consider conducting industry exchanges (see example appendix C1) or other similar types of market research (see FAR Part 10 and FAR Subpart 15.201). Exchanges with industry should begin early and continue throughout the


9.2.2 The PreSolicitation Announcement

planning process. Exchanges enable the team to understand the prevailing market conditions and create an effective acquisition strategy. Exchanges also provide an opportunity to establish DE expectations with potential Offerors and to promote teaming well in advance of the presolicitation announcement.

Exchanges with industry should be open to all interested members of the general contractor, subcontractor, and the A/E community.

The CO shall run this meeting and will be assisted by the PM and a representative from the Design Excellence Program.

The presolicitation announcement places the industry on notice of the pending opportunity for a DE/DB Project. The announcement also provides a general overview of: (1) the project; (2) the twophase, DB process; and (3) anticipated dates for the preproposal meeting and the release of the Phase 1 Request for Qualifications (RFQ).

9.2.3 Articulate Design Excellence Goals The presolicitation notice in FedBizOpps must identify each prospectuslevel DB project as a Design Excellence opportunity. The following is the language that shall be used to introduce each Design Excellence PreSolicitation announcement:

Continuing a legacy of outstanding public architecture that was initiated with the founding of the nation, the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS) seeks to commission our nation’s most talented architects, landscape architects, interior designers, engineers, and construction professionals to design and construct federal facilities of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of true integrated design that balances aesthetics, functionality, cost, constructability, durability, and reliability; create environmentally responsible and superior workplaces for Federal employees; and give contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

In this context, GSA announces an opportunity for Design and Construction Excellence in public architecture for performance of ArchitecturalEngineering Design and Construction services in accordance with GSA quality standards and requirements. As required by law, regulation or Executive Order, all facilities will meet Federal energy goals, security requirements, and achieve at least a LEED Gold certification.

9.2.4 Describe the Project The presolicitation announcement must accurately describe the nature of the project. The accuracy of the description is critical as it is used by Offerors to identify potential business opportunities.

See appendix B for sample language.


9.3.2 Goal

9.2.5 Describe the TwoPhase, DB Process The presolicitation announcement must provide a brief overview of the procurement process. In addition to the requirements for a synopsis as prescribed by FAR 5.207, since Offerors will evaluate certain elements of any potential opportunity, the FedBizOpps announcement must place Offerors on notice of the following:

● Stipends ● Publication of the shortlist ● Maximum number of firms to be shortlisted

9.2.6 Industry Day (PreProposal Conference) After issuing the presolicitation announcement, it is often useful to convene a presubmittal meeting for privatesector professionals interested in a particular project. The place and time of this meeting shall be included in the presolicitation announcement. The CO will run this meeting and will be assisted by the PM and a representative from the Design Excellence Program. The purpose is to clarify Design Excellence, the procurement process, and the nature of the project.

See appendix C for a typical agenda and presubmittal packet.

9.3 PHASE 1

9.3.1 Overview The Phase 1 evaluation factors (FAR 36.3031) must include technical approach and technical qualifications. It is important to note that Phase 1 is not conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. All that Phase 1 requires is for the contracting officer to “select the most highly qualified Offerors” to participate in Phase 2. However, that being stated, the contracting officer must still fully document and justify the selection using the evaluation factors and standards set forth in the Phase 1 RFQ.

The purpose of Phase 1 is to shortlist the most highly qualified Offerors based on the factors set forth in the Phase 1 RFQ. Note that this is fundamentally different than focusing on the architect, lead designer, or general contractor. Rather, because GSA enters into a single contract with a DB, Phase 1 takes a broad view and relies on Offerors to provide information and materials about their team. This is much different than the Brooks Act, which only focuses on the A/E firm or designbidbuild, which tends to focus on the general contractor. By streamlining Phase 1 to focus primarily on the teams, GSA intends to also decrease the costs to its industry partners to participate in the Phase 1 process.

9.3.3 Maximum Number of Highly Qualified Offerors While the FAR permits the CO to select up to five (5) Offerors to proceed to Phase 2, current best practices suggest that permitting more than three (3) firms to advance to Phase 2 tends to reduce competition. Industry has consistently stated that, from their


perspective, a shortlist longer than three (3) significantly diminishes their probability of winning the contract. Accordingly, because it costs money to pursue potential opportunities, firms often bypass the opportunities that shortlist to more than three (3) firms.

As a matter of policy, GSA is mandating that the Phase 1 RFQ restrict the maximum number of highly qualified Offerors to no more than three (3). The maximum number may be increased beyond three (3) only with the written approval of the Chief Architect and the Regional Commissioner for the Public Buildings Service. Any such approval must be obtained prior to receiving proposals in response to the Phase 1 RFQ.

9.3.4 Announcing the ShortList Section 6.5 of the Design Excellence Policies and Procedures requires the publishing of the shortlist of firms invited to participate in the Stage 2 team interviews. PBS has determined that announcing the shortlist (in FedBizOpps) provides increased opportunities for small and medium sized firms to team with the larger contractors that will ultimately submit the Phase 1 and 2 proposals. Therefore, as a matter of policy, GSA is mandating that the Phase 1 RFQ publically place Offerors on notice that GSA shall publish the names of the shortlisted Offerors in FedBizOpps.

9.3.5 Phase 1 Evaluation Panel As noted above, the CO is tasked by regulation with serving as the person who is ultimately responsible for selecting the most highly qualified Offerors to advance from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Much like other procurements, the CO is assisted by numerous voting and nonvoting members. As noted below, this subsection specifies certain requirements for the composition of the Phase 1 Evaluation Panel.

The Regional Coordinator (ReCO), in coordination with the Regional Chief Architect (RCA), acts as a liaison between OCA and the region for determining the proper composition of the Phase 1 Evaluation Panel.

9.3.6 Makeup of the Evaluation Panel In selecting members of the panel, the contracting officer should ensure that each member is knowledgeable in relevant disciplines and should be selected based on the expertise needed for decision making related to a particular project. GSA employees must be a licensed professional in their respective discipline (e.g., registered architect, engineer, landscape architect). By combining expertise, the panel has a balance that allows each panel member to learn from the others.

9.3.7 Mandatory Voting Members For each DE/DB project, there should be as many as five (5) voting members.

The OCA will recommend the following two (2) voting members to the CO: ● One design professional identified by OCA, Design Excellence Division. ● One expert from within GSA.


The RCA will recommend the following two (2) voting members to the Chief Architect and the CO:

● Regional Architect ● Regional Engineer

If a customer representative will serve as a voting member, the customer will recommend one (1) voting member to the Chief Architect and CO. If the customer does not want to serve as a voting member, then the CO may simply leave the number of voting members at four (4). The CO may also decide to add a voting member based on the particulars of a given project. For instance, the CO might want to add a voting member with expertise in a given engineering or architectural discipline. (The customer refers to the primary customer of the facility or a singular representative that has been selected by the agencies to participate on the evaluation panel and selection panels.)

The CO may reject any of the recommendations. In such an event, the CO must request recommendations for replacements. The Head of the Contracting Authority (HCA) will resolve any disagreements between OCA and the contracting officer. (In the regions, the HCA is the Regional Commissioner for the Public Buildings Service.)

9.3.8 Mandatory Nonvoting Peer Advisor Much like the Design Excellence process in a Brooks Act procurement, OCA will support each DB/DE project with the best possible national peers. During Phase 1, the Evaluation Panel shall have at least one (1) private sector design and/or construction professional proposed from the GSA National Register of Peer Professionals. This Peer shall: (1) participate in a nonvoting capacity; (2) serve as the “Lead Peer” during the Phase 2 stage of the procurement; and (3) serve as the “Lead Peer” throughout the life cycle of the project. The OCA will recommend a Peer(s) for approval by the CO. The CO may reject the recommendations. In such an event, OCA will recommend alternate members. The HCA will resolve any disagreements between OCA and the contracting officer.

9.3.9 Suggested Nonvoting Advisors At the discretion of the CO, and based on the complexities of the project, it may be advisable that additional nonvoting advisors participate during the Phase 1 evaluation, including:

● Customer agencies and representatives; ● GSA, Subject Matter Experts (SME) (as recommended by PM); ● CMa (as recommended by PM; CMa should already be under contract with PBS).

9.3.10 Mandatory Evaluation Factors As noted several times, this Chapter aims to merge DB with DE. An important element of the successful DE program has been the uniform application of evaluation criteria and the weighting of those factors. Accordingly, in order to establish the same uniformity for DB projects, evaluation of Phase 1 must be based on the following


criteria and percentage weighting. An exception may be granted only with the written approval of the Chief Architect and the Regional Commissioner for the Public Buildings Service.

● Factor 1: Technical Qualifications (60%) ● Factor 2: Approach to Design Build (20%) ● Factor 3: Lead Designer (20%)

See appendix D for a complete description of the mandatory Phase 1 Evaluation Factors, standards for evaluation, and factor/subfactor weighting.

9.4 PHASE 2

9.4.1 Overview Phase 2 is conducted as a FAR Part 15 procurement. As such, shortlisted Offerors need to submit a technical and a price proposal. This is a marked and clear distinction with how A/E services are procured under the Brooks Act because price must be a factor in the second phase of the DB selection procedures. Thus, the twophase DB process is not merely qualificationbased. However, as noted in the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, “The Government should be willing to pay some additional cost to avoid excessive uniformity in design of Federal buildings.” While there is a great deal of flexibility in the evaluation factors that GSA can use in Phase 2, the FAR suggests that this is the time for Offerors to submit “design concepts” and “proposed technical solutions.” Accordingly, as set forth in more detail below, the Design Concept will account for the highest weighted technical factor.

Key personnel comprise the second most important technical evaluation criteria during Phase 2. The reason being that internal experience demonstrates that projects have a higher likelihood of success when the Offerors rely on their “A” team to manage, deliver, and execute the work described in the RFP and the accompanying documents.

Phase 2 also mandates and makes greater use of oral presentations and discussions than may be typical on traditional, designbidbuild projects. Industry input and best practices suggest that the owner (in this case GSA) and the design builder should engage in early and active discussions of the concept submissions prior to contract award.

9.4.2 Special Pricing Considerations Based on the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, the Phase 2 RFP must state that all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. See FAR 15.1011(b)(2). The CO may provide for a different importance among technical and price only with the approval of the HCA and the Chief Architect.


In addition, the Phase 2 RFP must provide for a price realism analysis in the solicitation for the purpose of assessing, among others, whether an Offeror’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or risk inherent in an Offeror’s proposal. The solicitation must provide Offerors with notice that the agency intends to perform a price realism analysis.

9.4.3 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) As a procurement conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15, the contracting officer serves as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) and is responsible for selecting an evaluation team (see FAR 15.303). The fundamental role of the Phase 2 SSEB is the same as in any other FAR Part 15 procurement.

In addition to the Peer who participated in Phase 1, the CO shall select at least two (2) additional Peers to serve as nonvoting advisors during Phase 2. The selection of these two (2) additional Peers must be made prior to the due date for the submission of Phase 1 proposals. (Refer to section 9.3.8 for procedures.)

9.4.4 SSEB Makeup As a general matter, the CO should strive to ensure that the same voting and nonvoting members who participated in the Phase 1 Evaluation Panel continue with the same role in Phase 2. If, for some reason, changes are needed, the CO shall follow the same procedures and approvals as outlined above in Section 9.3.7. If additional voting or nonvoting members are required, the contracting officer shall request a recommendation from the OCA. All Phase 2 Voting members must be Federal Government employees.

9.4.5 Mandatory Evaluation Criteria For the same reasons articulated in 9.3.10, the evaluation of Phase 2 must be based on the following criteria and percentage weighting. An exception may be granted only with the written approval of the Chief Architect and the Regional Commissioner for the Public Buildings Service.

● Factor 1: Design Concept (50%) ● Factor 2: Key Personnel (25%) ● Factor 3: Management Plan (15%) ● Factor 4: Project Labor Agreement (10%)

See appendix G for a complete description of the Phase 2 Source Selection Factors, standards for evaluation, and factor/subfactor weighting.

9.4.6 Stipend DB competitions are expensive because of the time and level of effort required to develop a concept design, technical submission, and the cost estimating effort necessary to support a price proposal.


As a matter of policy, GSA is mandating that stipends shall be provided to the unsuccessful Phase 2 Offerors. An exception may be granted only with the written approval of the Chief Architect and the Regional Commissioner for the Public Buildings Service.

In consideration for the preparation of a Phase 2 technical proposal, GSA will pay a stipend to Offerors not selected for award of the resulting contract. Offerors that submit incomplete or unacceptable Phase 2 proposals will not be eligible for a stipend. For the avoidance of doubt, no stipend is paid during Phase 1.

The contract will provide that as a condition of submitting a Phase 2 technical proposal, and notwithstanding the conditions of any notice appearing thereon, the Government shall have unlimited rights (as defined in the “Drawings and Other Data to Become Property of Government” clause contained in the Agreement) in and to the technical data contained in the proposal.

A stipend tool has been integrated within the GSA Professional Services Tool. This tool must be used by the Project Manager to determine the amount of stipend to be paid to each of the unsuccessful Offerors.

9.4.7 Discussions – Oral Presentations As permitted in FAR 15.102, GSA will provide each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 with the opportunity to engage in at least two (2) oneonone discussions with the Government evaluators; one prior to the submission of Phase 2 proposals and one after submission. The discussions will provide the parties with the opportunity for dialogue early in the Phase 2 process.

Based on experience and industry feedback, it is beneficial to allow Phase 2 Offerors with the opportunity to provide a preliminary checkin prior to submitting formal written technical and price proposals. GSA believes that providing such an opportunity will permit the Government evaluators to better understand the Offeror’s particular vision and preliminary concepts at the early development stage. Such a meeting allows both sides with the ability to quickly determine whether there are errors, defects, or similar misunderstandings related to the RFP. In such instances, the Government or Offeror can seek to resolve the issue well in advance of the time for the submission of formal written technical and price proposals.

See appendix E for the Initial Oral Presentation and appendix F for the Second Oral Presentation Procedures to use in the Phase 2 RFP.

9.4.8 Initial Oral Presentation: Scope and Content In regards to the scope and content of the oneonone discussions that will occur between the Government’s participants and the Offeror’s representatives, the purpose is to not only allow the Government to review a “preliminary concept,” but to also allow the Offeror and the Government to engage in dialogue about the “preliminary concept.” As a general rule of thumb, at this stage, a “preliminary concept” might be a


roughly 15%20% version of what the Offeror intends to submit. While it will differ slightly by project, “preliminary concept” essentially means drawings, schematics, and other similar architectural or engineering drawings and renderings that the Offeror prepares in response to the Phase 2 RFP. GSA anticipates that the discussions will enable the Phase 2 Offerors to provide more complete and accurate proposal submissions.

9.4.9 Initial Oral Presentation: Participants and Agenda The Offeror is free to choose the people who will attend the oneonone discussion(s) and to prepare an agenda. That stated, Offerors are limited to a maximum of eight (8) people total. From GSA, the following individuals should be present: the voting members of the SSEB; PM; CO; and the Lead Peer. The following additional advisors are recommended: SMEs and CMa. The Offeror may ask questions of the GSA participants.

As noted in FAR 15.306(e), Government personnel are not permitted to engage in certain conduct, including favoring one Offeror over another or revealing an Offeror’s technical solution, unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise an Offeror’s intellectual property to another Offeror.

9.4.10 Initial Oral Presentation: Timing and Scheduling Within seven (7) calendar days of the date the Offeror is notified of its selection as one of the shortlisted Offerors for purposes of qualifying for Phase 2, GSA will contact each Offeror to schedule the Initial Oral Presentation.

9.4.11 Initial Oral Presentation: Technical Equipment and Support The Offerors are responsible for providing their own audiovisual, computing, and other technical equipment. To the extent available, and as worked out in advance, GSA may permit each Offeror to use available equipment at the location site, such as a screen or TV.

9.4.12 Initial Oral Presentations: Recording GSA will record the meeting and provide a copy of the recording to the Offeror.

9.4.13 Initial Oral Presentation: Written Materials The Offeror may not leave any materials with the Government.

9.4.14 Initial Oral Presentation: No Scoring or Evaluation There will be no scoring or evaluation done of the Initial Oral Presentation.

9.4.15 Submission of Technical and Price Proposals After the Initial Oral Presentation, each Offeror will submit a technical and price proposal within the time specified in the Phase 2 RFP.


○

○

○○

9.4.16 Peer Review #1 and SME Review of the Technical Proposal The CO will distribute and conduct two concurrent technical proposal reviews: one with the Peers and one with the SMEs. (CO’s are responsible for the safekeeping of source selection information.)

● The Peer Review #1 If the Peers have not yet visited the construction site, the CO must arrange for such a visit. After the site visit, the Peers convene inperson at the regional office building. The CO must provide a secure room for the Peers to meet. The Peers will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of each of the proposals in accordance with evaluation criteria set forth in the Phase 2 RFP. If necessary, the CO may appoint a nonvoting member to the SSEB for the purpose of assisting the Peers with developing the written summary. The Lead Peer will provide the written summary and an inperson briefing with the voting and nonvoting members of the SSEB prior to the Second Oral Presentation.

● The SME Review shall focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the ability of the proposed system selections to satisfy the performance criteria set forth in the Phase 2 RFP. The PM will present the written comments from the SMEs to the voting and nonvoting members of the SSEB prior to the Second Oral Presentation.

9.4.17 SSEB Review of Phase 2 Technical Proposals Concurrent with the distribution to the Peers and SMEs, the CO will also provide the technical proposals to the voting members of the SSEB and any additional advisors who were not part of the Section 9.4.16 review. Each voting and nonvoting member will separately review the technical proposal for strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, but hold off scoring the proposal until after the Second Oral Presentation. When the evaluators are finished reviewing the technical proposal submission, the Lead Peer and the PM will present the findings from the reviews conducted pursuant to Section 9.4.16.

At this point, the voting members of the SSEB meet to discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies that will inform and shape the nature of the discussions during the Second Oral Presentation. The SSA will then conduct the Second Oral Presentation with each Offeror.

9.4.18 Phase 2 Second Oral Presentation As permitted in FAR 15.201 and 15.306, GSA will provide each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 with the opportunity to make the Second Oral Presentation. The purpose of the Second Oral Presentation will be to engage in discussions about the Offeror’s proposed Design Concept, as submitted in response to the Phase 2 RFP. Much like the Initial Oral Presentation, the Second Oral Presentation will provide the opportunity for dialogue between the parties. To that end, for purposes of the oral presentation, the procurement proceeds in the same manner as provided in FAR


Subpart 15.306(d). Unlike the Initial Oral Presentation, the Government will use the oral presentation as an element of the overall evaluation of the Offeror.

See appendix F for a sample language to use in the Phase 2 RFP to describe the Second Oral Presentation.

9.4.19 Concluding the Evaluations After conclusion of the Second Oral Presentation, the procurement continues to proceed in the same manner as provided in FAR Subpart 15.3. That is to say, the CO instructs the SSEB to evaluate and score the proposals, provides the Offeror with deficiencies and significant weaknesses (see FAR 15.306), requests final proposal revisions, otherwise concludes the discussions, and makes the final selection decision (see FAR 15.308).

9.5 ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES GOVERNING PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 In addition to other requirements set forth by law or regulation, the following procedures govern the conduct of the twophase designbuild selection process. The CO may obtain a waiver with the concurrence of the Regional Chief Architect, Regional Director of the Office of Design and Construction, and the HCA.

● All members of the Phase 1 Evaluation Panel and advisors and Phase 2 SSEB and advisors must sign and adhere to GSA “Conflict of Interest” and “Nondisclosure” policies.

● The names of individuals on or advising the Panel and Board must not be made public in advance of the final selection and contract award.

● Once the deliberation and voting begin, only the voting members of the Evaluation Panel, the SSEB, and the contracting officer may be present. However, that being stated, the panel members may reach out to the nonvoting advisors at any time during the evaluation process.

● The Panel and SSEB meet in the GSA regional office building. ● The Peer Review #1 will be conducted in the GSA regional office building. ● The SME review may be conducted in the most expeditious manner chosen in the CO’s discretion including by electronic media (i.e. meeting space or similar technology).

● The Initial Oral Presentation and the Second Oral Presentation occur in the GSA regional office building.

● The GSA project executive and project manager may not be voting members.

9.6 PEER ADVISORS

9.6.1 Evaluation and Source Selection Process As highly regarded privatesector professionals with unique knowledge of their respective disciplines, the advice and insights of individuals on the GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner’s National Register of Peer Professionals are


invaluable. Peers are deeply involved and essential to successfully selecting the most appropriate DB team.

Based on their experience and education, the Peer can assist the voting members to better understand proposals that contain unique, complex, or cutting edge design and construction strategies. Some individuals involved in the Phase 1 evaluation and Phase 2 selection process may not be architects or designers and, as a result, may not be familiar with design language or the evolutionary nature of the design process. The Peer(s), by sharing their expertise and helping nondesigners interpret design proposals and identify potential design options, can help facilitate a full, open, and constructive evaluation to reach the best decision possible. The Peer(s) can also offer insights as to whether and how a proposal will advance the underlying concepts of Design Excellence, which is part of the technical evaluation.

9.6.2 Post Award Peer Reviews Peer Advisors (typically three per project and will vary depending on the project requirements) participate in the post award process as critics in a minimum of two additional Peer design reviews.

This review is convened by the Chief Architect and involves three (3) national peers— including the “Lead” peer that advised the Evaluation Panel and SSEB. Observers, if any, should be kept to an absolute minimum. The Peer Review(s) is intended as a constructive discussion among professional stakeholders and not a presentation. The presence of observers discourages candid dialogue. In this context, there should be time for the national peers to meet privately to flesh out and organize their comments.

Whereas the first Peer review takes place after the submission of Phase 2 RFP submissions and before the Second Oral Presentation, the second Peer Review should be scheduled after the contract award. The timing should allow for further changes and refinements based on peer input. The goal, here, is to understand how the chosen concept has evolved (from the contract award) and identify areas and pathways for making additional improvements. These might deal with urban design, security and entrance issues, architectural forms and spatial sequence, the fabric and materiality of the design, and insights regarding engineering, sustainability, efficiency and workplace design. The purpose of the review is not to mandate solutions but to highlight opportunities to strengthen the design and fulfill project requirements. If significant changes are needed, the Chief Architect can recommend additional peer reviews to provide continued feedback in the concept development process.

For new construction, the venue for this review is usually the lead designer’s office. For major R&A, modernization, and preservation projects, this review can be held in regional headquarters or in the community where the existing facility is located to accommodate a site visit.


For coordination information go to: https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odcpolicyandprocedures/home/designpeerreview

9.7 MISCELLANEOUS POST AWARD ACTIVITIES

9.7.1 Minimum Performance Criteria Checklist GSA uses its Minimum Performance Criteria (MPC) Checklist to promote and track compliance with the federallymandated Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. The Guiding Principles are a set of sustainable design best practices that are required per Executive Order 13693. GSA’s 39item MPC checklist of requirements and submissions is posted on GSA InSite (PBS>ODC>gBUILD), available upon request from [email protected], and housed in PBS’ gBUILD project sustainability system. Access to gBUILD can be obtained through the project manager and/or emailing [email protected]. The MPC checklist must be completed and submitted to the GSA Project Manager at least three (3) weeks prior to the Commissioner’s Presentation.

9.7.2 Integrated Design Reviews The Integrated Design Review(s) (IDR) verify that the RFP is being fulfilled in the submitted concept and to document any changes that may ultimately be required to satisfy the RFP. Participants may include the PM, CMa, RCA and OCA representatives, ReCO, Regional & Central Office SMEs. The first IDR shall be conducted within four (4) weeks of the NTP.

For coordination information go to: https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odcpolicyandprocedures/

9.7.3 Project Readiness Checklist The Project Readiness Checklist is intended to evaluate project readiness prior to the Commissioner Concept review. In order to ensure that the Commissioner’s review and approval is wellinformed, the evaluation must make certain that issues raised during the discussions, IDR, peer and SME reviews are resolved before it is considered by the Commissioner. The checklist must be completed and received by OCA at least 10 working days prior to the requested Commissioner’s presentation date. Unresolved issues must be noted in this checklist by the relevant reviewers. Where a project has unresolved design issues or uncertainty at this stage the project can take one of two courses:

1) If project readiness is of significant concern to OCA, the project’s concept presentation will be cancelled until the issues are resolved. This decision will be made by the Chief Architect in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner for Project Delivery and the relevant Regional Commissioner.

2) If project readiness issues can be appropriately resolved in later design phases, the Chief Architect may elect to allow the concept presentation to


https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odc�policy�and�procedures

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odc�policy�and�procedures/home/design-peer-review

proceed. In that case, the issues must be captured in this checklist and the Commissioner must be made aware of the issues and the plan to address them prior to review of the project.

It is highly recommended that OCA and the project team begin using the checklist to track issues as early in the design process as possible, rather than as a final ‘check’ before the Commissioner’s concept presentation.

9.7.4 SME Rolling Reviews The PM will establish a series of document packages (that may be based on the sequence of construction) and a schedule of review submissions. The ReCO will distribute the packages to the SMEs for review and comment. SMEs will review the technical submissions for concurrence with the P100 Requirements.

9.7.5 Commissioner’s Presentation & Chief Architect Approval Letter and/or Qualifications For coordination information go to: https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odcpolicyandprocedures/home/commissionersconcept

9.7.6 Construction Excellence Peer Review (3) For coordination information go to: https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odcpolicyand procedures/home/constructionreview

END of CHAPTER 9


https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odc�policy�and-procedures/home/construction-review

https://sites.google.com/a/gsa.gov/odc�policy�and-procedures/home/commissioner-s-concept

APPENDIX A Interactions Matrix

Design Build │Desgn Excellence Interactions Matrix

PROJECT PHASE

Asset

Mngr Customer

Rep(s) Eval Panel

& SSEB PEER(s)

Advisor Advisor

Other PM CO SSA CMa ReCO OCA Rep Chief Arch RCA AC OPD SME(s) Notes item reference #

A PreAWARD PHASE

A1 PROJECT PLANNING (9.1.1 Coordination)

A1.1 Feasibility Study & Selection Delivery

Method x x x x x x x x

A1.2 Site Selection & Acquisition x x x x x x x x

A1.3 CapPMP x x x x x x x

A1.4 Project Charter x x x x x x x

A1.5 Acquisition Plan x x x x x x x

A1.6 Communication Plan x x x x

A1.7 Source Selection Plan (SSP) x x x x x

A1.8 Project Readiness Checklist (Chapter 9,

Section 9.7.3) x x x x

A1.9 OA Initial Financial Agreement w/

customer(s) x x

A1.10 Industry Exchange DE expectations,

Market info & teaming (Chapter 9, Section 9.2.1) x x x x

A1.11 Acquisition Schedule Distributed x x x x x x x x

A1.12 Evaluation Panel/SSEB & Chairperson

selection (Chapter 9, Section 9.3.5, 9.4.3) x x x Chief Architect recommends and concurs

with panel and board selection made by CO

(SSA)

A1.13 Nonvoting Peers & Advisors to Evaluation

Panel & SSEB selected (Chapter 9, Section 9.3.8) x x x x x Chief Architect recommends peers selection

made by CO (SSA)

PM CO SSA Asset

Mngr CMa Customer

Rep(s) ReCO OCA Rep Chief Arch RCA AC OPD Eval Panel

& SSEB PEER(s)

Advisor Advisor

Other SME(s)

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x SMEs as requested by PM

x

x

x x

x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x

x x

x x x x x x x

x

x x x

x x

PROJECT PHASE

A2 DB SUPPORT SERVICES (CMa)

A2.1 Prepare Acquisition Package

A2.2 RFP

A2.3 Proposal Preparation

A2.4 Review and Negotiate

A2.5 Submit allowance request for Cma services

A2.6 Award Cma services

A3 PREPARATION OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS

A3.1 Prepare POR & Scope of Work

A3.2 Prepare PreSolicitation Announcement

(Chapter 9, Section 9.2.2)

A3.3 Prepare Phase 1: Request for Qualifications

(RFQ) (Chapter 9, Section 9.3)

A3.4 Prepare Phase 2: Request for Proposals

RFP (Chapter 9, Section 9.4)

A3.5 Post PreSolicitation Notice in FedBizOps

(15 day waiting period)

A4 PHASE 1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (Section 9.3)

A4.1 Post RFQ in FedBizOps

A4.2 PreProposal Conference (Industry Day)


A4.3 Small Business Outreach Event

A4.4 Qualifications received no earlier than 30

days after RFQ posted

A4.5 CO/COTR Review sumissions verifify

completeness & perform reference checks

A4.6 Evaluation Panel evaluate response to RFQ

and provides recommendation to the SSA

A4.7 SSA selects shortlist of Offerors and post in

FedBizOpps (Chapter 9,Section 9.4.7)

A5 PHASE 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (Section 9.4)

A5.1 P100 Waivers signoff by OCA & AC OPD

and included in RFP A5.1 Distribute RFP to the short listed Offerors

A5.2 PreProposal conference GSA & customer

presentations to Offerors

A5.3 Small Business Networking Event

A5.3 Meet with Offerors to identify gaps in RFP (10

days out from RFP distribution)

Notes item reference #

Phase 2 & confirm P100 waiver approval in place

Asset Customer Eval Panel PEER(s) Advisor

PM CO SSA Mngr CMa Rep(s) ReCO OCA Rep Chief Arch RCA AC OPD & SSEB Advisor Other SME(s) Notes item reference #

x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x

x

x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x x x x x

x x x x x

Addresses SME Comments noted from

Solicitation Phase and included in Award

Documents

PROJECT PHASE

A5.4 Initial Oral Discussion with Offerors (Chapter

9, Section 9.4.7 & Appendix E)

A5.5 Post Q&A and issue amendments

A5.8 Receive Technical and Price Submission

CO reviews for compliance with requirements

A5.10 Peer Review #1 of Technical Submission


A5.11 SME Review #1 of Technical Submission


A5.12 Convene SSEB & review Technical

Submissions (Chapter 9, Section 9.4.17)

A5.13 SME and Peer Comments presented to

SSEB & Advisors (Chapter 9, Section 9.4.17)

A5.15 Second Oral Presentation (Chapter 9,

Section 9.4.18 & Appendix F)

A5.16 SSEB Deliberations and recommendation

(Chapter 9, Section 9.4.19 & Appendix G)

A5.17 SSEB Report submitted to CO (SSA)

A5.18 SSA conduct Discussions with Offerors

that are within competitive range and/or award

A5.20 Best and Final Offeror (BAFO) Submission

A5.22 SSA Reviews makes final determination

A5.23 CO (SSA) Request PLA from selected

Offeror (30 days to submit)

A5.24 CO receives PLA

B AWARD PHASE

B.1 Congressional Authorization and

Appropriation before poroceeding with Award B.2 GSA Acquire Property Title before NTP

B.3 Allowance Request 7 days before Award

B.4 Contract Award NTP & post in FedBizOps

B.5 Stipend to be paid to unsuccessful Offerors

Selected Offeror to invoice design work (Chapter 9,

Section 9.4.6 & Appendix H)

C POST AWARD DESIGN PHASE

C.1 Kickoff Meeting Conformance Set

Distributed & integration of peer comments from

C.2 Integrated Design Review (IDR) Review #1

SMEs (Chapter 9, Section 9.6.2)

C.3 Peer Review #2 (Chapter 9, Section 9.6.2)

PROJECT PHASE

Asset Customer Eval Panel PEER(s) Advisor

PM CO SSA Mngr CMa Rep(s) ReCO OCA Rep Chief Arch RCA AC OPD & SSEB Advisor Other SME(s) Notes item reference # C.4 Incorporation of approved Peer and IDR

comments x x x x x x

C.5 Integrated Design Review (IDR) Review #2

SMEs (Chapter 9, Section 9.6.2) x x x x x

C.6 Readiness Checklist (Chapter 9, Section

9.7.3) x x x x x x

C.7 Commissioner's Presentation Chief

Architect Letter of Approval and/or Qualifications

C.8 Peer Review #3 Design Development


x x x x x

x x x x x x

C.9 Betterments identify, negotiate price,

implement changes x x x x x x x x x

C.10 SME Rolling Reviews (Chapter 9, Section

9.7.5) x x x x x x x x SME interaction as necessary to review

design packages

C.11 90 & 100% CD Review & Comment Log

back check (Chapter 9, Section 9.7.5) x x x x x x x x SME interaction as necessary to review

design packages

D.1 Construction Excellence Peer Reviews x x x X X

D CONSTRUCTION PHASE

APPENDIX B PRESOLICITATION NOTICE

Solicitation No.: [FILLIN BY REGION]

Continuing a legacy of outstanding public architecture that was initiated with the founding of the nation, the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS) seeks to commission our nation’s most talented architects, landscape architects, interior designers, engineers, and construction professionals to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of true integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, functionality, constructability, durability, and reliability; create environmentally responsible and superior workplaces for civilian Federal employees; and give contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

In this context, GSA announces an opportunity for Design and Construction Excellence in public architecture for performance of ArchitecturalEngineering Design and Construction services in accordance with GSA quality standards and requirements. As required by law, regulation or Executive Order, all facilities will meet Federal energy goals, security requirements, and achieve at least a LEED Gold certification.

GSA intends to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a DesignBuild (DB) contract for the new [FILLIN BLDG TYPE]. This acquisition encompasses the design and construction of the offices and related space as required for [FILLIN]. The facility includes [FILLIN BY REGION]. The newly constructed [FILLIN BY REGION] shall be located on GSA owned property, on a site between [FILLIN BY REGION LOCATION AND ADDRESS].

The total space requirement consists of approximately [FILLIN BY REGION] gross square feet, available for use by the agency for personnel, furnishings and equipment. The building will be designed and constructed in English units. The estimated total design/build cost is between [FILLIN BY REGION] and [FILLIN BY REGION] with occupancy planned for the year [FILLIN BY REGION] (pending fund availability). The scope of Design Build Services may include, but not limited to, the following: design/construction documents and construction work, which consists of providing all labor, equipment, and materials for a complete buildout.

Chapter 9, Appendix B, page 1 of 3

GSA intends to award a firmfixed price designbuild contract pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) twophase designbuild selection procedures (FAR Subpart 36.3). For this contract award process, GSA will issue two Solicitations in sequence: Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.

The purpose of Phase 1 (the Request for Qualifications) is to select the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase 1 to participate in Phase 2 (the Request for Proposals). Once Phase 1 is complete, the Contracting Officer will invite the “shortlisted” Offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals. Potential Offerors are hereby placed on notice that GSA will publicly announce the names of the Phase 1 “shortlist” on FedBizOpps.

Maximum Number of “ShortListed” Offerors: The Contracting Officer will select a maximum of three (3) of the most highly rated Offerors to proceed to Phase 2.

Phase 2 of the solicitation is prepared in accordance with FAR Part 15 and include the Phase 2 evaluation factors, developed in accordance with 15.304. Phase 2 solicitations require submission of technical and price proposals, which are evaluated separately, in accordance with Part 15.

Stipend: In consideration for the preparation of a Phase 2 technical proposal, GSA will pay a stipend to Offerors not selected for award of the resulting contract. Offerors that submit incomplete or unacceptable Phase 2 proposals will not be eligible for a stipend. For the avoidance of doubt, no stipend is paid during Phase 1.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, GSA intends to award a contract to a single Offeror for all design and all construction services.

This procurement will be open to both large and small business firms. The firm (if not a small business concern) shall be required to present an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 19.7, as part of its proposal.

The RFQ will be issued electronically on or about [FILLIN BY REGION] on the Internet at: http://www.fedbizopps.gov/.

Prior to releasing the Phase I RFQ, GSA will host a conference for interested Offerors:

Date: TBD


http://www.fedbizopps.gov

Time: TBD Location: TBD

Prospective attendees are encouraged to register their company with the GSA contact listed below via email by [FILLIN BY REGION] for all individuals to attend. Call in reservations will not be accepted. This briefing is intended to review the scope of the project, submittal requirements and review the project site.

[FILLIN BY REGION] Contracting Officer Email: [FILLIN BY REGION]


APPENDIX C Early Exchanges

This appendix provides lessons learned and best practices for conducting the early exchanges with industry.

Project teams should plan on allocating 48 hours of facetoface meetings with potential contractors. These meetings can occur at a mutually agreeable time and location.

Experience has shown that the meetings can: ● expand interest; ● increase competition; ● set expectations; ● assist with refining the acquisition strategy.

After these meetings, the project team should prepare a summary that is then posted on FedBizOpps.

Project teams may also want to explore open workshops to invite interested firms to participate in early discussions with the Government regarding performance metrics, energy conservation measures, and perceived risks.

Chapter 9, Appendix C page 1 of 1

NEW UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

LOS ANGELES, CA PREPROPOSAL CONFERENCE July 18, 2012

Chapter 9, Appendix C2 page 1 of 2

NEW UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

LOS ANGELES, CA

• MEETING AGENDA – Introduction William Guerin – Remarks Judge Margaret Morrow – RFP

Document Update Duane Allen – RFP Procurement Process Lawrence Hales

– Presentations

City of Los Angeles Simon Pastucha GSA David Insinga USMS Chaz Kelican US

Courts Cliff Harlan/Allen Leslein

Q & A

Chapter 9, Appendix C2 page 2 of 2

Appendix D Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria

Summary Factor 1: Technical Qualifications (60%) Factor 2: Approach To DesignBuild (20%) Factor 3: Lead Designer (20%)

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS (60%)

SUBFACTOR 1.A: EXPERIENCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND

A/E

Description: This evaluation factor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror’s designbuild (DB) team. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term A/E is defined as an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering that will have responsibility for developing detailed design and construction documents.

Submittal Requirement: Each Offeror shall provide sufficient documentation in order to demonstrate the extent of the Offeror’s past experience for at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity (as further defined in this evaluation factor). Of this group of similar projects, the General Contractor must have served as the prime contractor of at least one project and the A/E must have had responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for at least one project.

ALL projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

● Construction was substantially completed within eight years of the submission deadline for Phase 1 proposals; and

● The project was delivered by DB or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project.

Chapter 9 page 1 of 6

A project that possesses between [REGION TO CHOOSE THREE OR FOUR CHARACTERISTICS AT THE LOW END AND SIX OR SEVEN AS ITS UPPER END] of the following characteristics will be considered similar in size, scope, and complexity for purposes of this evaluation factor:

[THE REGIONS WILL NEED TO FILL IN CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THEIR PROJECTS. EXAMPLES MIGHT INCLUDE:]

Example 1: The work involved the adaptive reuse of an existing building: For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “adaptive reuse” is defined as the process of adapting old structures for purposes other than those originally intended.

Example 2: The work involved an historic property and was required to follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “historic property” means any historic or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 800.16(l)). “National Register of Historic Places” means the National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to expand and maintain under the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 60.1);

Example 3: The work involved a modernization of an existing property to extend the life of the asset beyond 2050. This project must be able to adapt to a changing climate over its intended service life. Work may include some or all of the following: civil/site; structural; architectural systems; electrical; plumbing and mechanical, etc,

Example 4: The project must meet one of the following criteria: (i) The building size was not less than XXXX gross square feet, or (ii) The cost at award of the DB contract was more than $XXX million.

Standard for Evaluation: The standard is met when the Offeror submits at least three (3) projects of similar in size, scope, and complexity.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● The General Contractor and the A/E firm worked on the same project ● A project possesses more than [REGION TO INSERT THREE OR FOUR, AS

PER THE CHOSEN MINIMUM] of the characteristics listed above


SUBFACTOR 1.B: PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE GENERAL

CONTRACTOR AND A/E

Description: This factor considers the Offeror’s past performance in providing design and construction services on the projects submitted by the Offeror under Evaluation Factor 1A. Past performance will be evaluated to determine the probability that the Offeror will successfully perform the project identified in the RFQ based on demonstrated past performance. [REST TO BE COMPLETED BY REGION]

Submittal Requirement: [TO BE COMPLETED BY REGION]

Standard for Evaluation: [TO BE COMPLETED BY REGION]

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● Certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design and/or construction excellence

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: APPROACH TO DESIGNBUILD (20%)

Description: This factor considers the Offeror’s approach to establishing a designbuild team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the Government’s objectives, including the realization of Design Excellence. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” refers to GSA’s Design Excellence (DE) Program which seeks a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time. DE further seeks to commission our nation’s most talented constructors, designers, and artists to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, functionality, constructability, reliability; creating environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees; and giving contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirement: Each Offeror must submit a written narrative (not to exceed 10 pages) concerning its approach to the DB process. An Offeror may allocate the 10 pages in any manner it chooses.


Standard for Evaluation: The narrative must discuss each of the subjects set forth below. The following bullets are not subfactors; rather, they are elements the Government will consider when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

● Philosophy and Design Intent: The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent as related to the project that is described in the solicitation. Such a discussion may include such topics as the parameters of an overall design philosophy; the Offeror’s approach to the challenge of public architecture and related issues; parameters that may apply in creating [INSERT DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT TYPE OR ISSUES]; and commitment to integrated and sustainable design. The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent should be characterized by clarity, standard grammar, and the absence of clichés or jargon. The Government expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project.

● Management Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach to DB including such topics as the lines and methods of communication; decisionmaking; interaction with consultants; the means to integrate client and community input; the physical location of major design and production work; work to be produced in remote offices; the role of specialty contractors; and, managing quality and cost. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

● Design Excellence: The Offeror’s approach to supporting and collaborating as a cohesive team in order to realize Design Excellence. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project.

● Stipend: Explain how the stipend will be distributed among the team members. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror will share the stipend in an equitable manner among the team members.

The standard is met when: ● The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project; ● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror’s management process

will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort; ● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will realize Design

Excellence on this project; and, ● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will share the stipend

in an equitable manner among team members.


○

○

○

Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

● Clearly demonstrated and defined compatible corporate values and corporate philosophies;

● The proven, successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 1.A;

● Entities that have developed a patented process or unique product on which the designbuilder intends to rely in performing the project identified in the RFQ;

● Written, binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (20%)

Description: This factor considers the Lead Designer’s portfolio in the context of Design Excellence. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “Lead Designer” means an individual or team of designers who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” has the same meaning as stated in Evaluation Factor 2.

Submittal Requirements: Each Offeror must submit the information requested below. The following are not subfactors, but, rather, are elements the Government will consider when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

● Submit a portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to provide Design Excellence. Address his or her participation in each project.

If the Lead Designer is an individual, submit a portfolio of up to three (3) projects completed in the last ten (10) years (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

If the Lead Designer is a team, submit a portfolio of up to two (2) completed projects by the lead designer(s) on the team (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

Each project must include a narrative that addresses the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client's program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objects were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating Design Excellence.


■

■

○

○

In addition to the page limits above, each Offeror may include: one of the following for each project: a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and Two pages of photographs for each project.

Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

Standard for Evaluation:

The standard is met when: ● The submission demonstrates an understanding of the design issues to

be addressed in the project identified in the RFQ as evidenced by the projects that the Offeror chose to submit for this evaluation factor;

● The submission portrays creative and appropriate responses to client criteria and needs, demonstrates design leadership, and clearly exemplifies Design Excellence.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

● Lead Designer has a track record of delivering superior quality; ● Lead Designer demonstrates history of dedication to clients with complex

building projects; ● Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of exploration, rigor, and

personal commitment to Design Excellence; ● The portfolio includes a project that is of the same size, scope, and

complexity as defined in Evaluation Factor 1.A.


Appendix E Phase 2 Initial Oral Presentation Procedures

Initial Oral Presentation As provided for in accordance with FAR 15.102, each Offeror shall provide an initial oral presentation to the Government (the “Discussions”). The “Discussions” will provide the parties with the opportunity for dialogue during the Phase 2 proposal preparation.

In regards to the scope and content of the exchanges that will occur between the Government’s participants and the Offeror’s representatives as part of the “Discussions”, the purpose of the “Discussions” is to not only allow the Government to review the “preliminary concept” prepared by the Offeror, but to also allow the Offeror and the Government to engage in dialogue about the “preliminary concept.” For purposes of the “Discussions,” by “preliminary concept,” the Government is referring to drawings, schematics, and other similar architectural or engineering renderings that the Offeror prepares in response to the Phase 2 RFP. Such dialogue could include, but not be limited to, questions posed by the Offeror and answers provided by the Government and vice versa. The Government anticipates that the “Discussions” will enable the Phase 2 Offerors to provide more complete and accurate proposal submissions without incurring additional costs during the procurement process.

There is no maximum or minimum materials that must be presented or prepared as part of the “preliminary concept.” Offerors are free to develop as much, or as little, material as they desire. Each Offeror will have a maximum of ninety (90) minutes in which to provide a presentation and to engage in dialogue with the Government. Offerors may allot this time in any manner they so choose. For instance, if the Offeror spends the entire ninety (90) minutes giving a presentation, then there would not be any time left to engage the Government in any dialogue, which is the real purpose of the “Discussions.”

The Offeror is free to choose its presenters.

A mutually agreeable location, date, and time for the “Discussions” will be established between the Government and Offeror. Within seven (7) calendar days of the date the Offeror is notified of its selection as one of the shortlisted Offerors for purposes of qualifying for Phase 2, GSA will contact each Offeror to schedule the Initial Oral Presentation.

Each Offeror shall be responsible for providing its own audiovisual, computing, and other technical equipment that it needs to use during the “Discussions.” To the extent available, and as worked out in advance with the Contracting Officer, the Government may permit each Offeror to use available equipment at the location site, such as a screen or TV.

The Government will record the “Discussions” and provide a copy of the record to the Offeror within ten (10) business days after the presentation. In addition, the Offeror

Chapter 9, Appendix E, page 1 of 2

may decide to record the presentation with its own device. In such an instance, the Offeror must provide a copy of the recording to the Government within ten (10) business days after the presentation.

The Offeror may not leave any materials with the Government at the conclusion of the “Discussions.” None of the materials from the “Discussions” will be incorporated into the Contract. No oral statements of any kind made by the Government during the “Discussions” may be used to modify, change, or otherwise alter the Phase 2 RFP. All modifications, changes, or alterations to the Phase 2 Phase 2 RFP must be issued in writing by the Contracting Officer to all parties remaining in the competition.

The materials presented as part of the “preliminary concept” during “Discussions” will not substitute for, or augment, written information. There will be no scoring or evaluation done of the “preliminary concept” itself during the “Discussions.”

Chapter 9, Appendix E, page 2 of 2

Appendix F Phase 2 Second Oral Presentation Procedures

Second Oral Presentation As permitted in FAR 15.306, each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 will have the opportunity to make a Second Oral Presentation (the “Second Discussion”). The purpose of this Second Discussion will be to engage in discussions about the Offeror’s proposed Design Concept, as submitted in response to the Phase 2 RFP. Much like the Initial Oral Presentation, the Second Discussion will provide the opportunity for dialogue between the parties. To that end, for purposes of the Second Discussion, the procurement proceeds in a manner as provided in FAR Subpart 15.306(d).

Unlike the Initial Oral Presentation, the Government will use the Second Discussion as an element of the overall evaluation of the Offeror.

In regards to the scope and content of the exchanges that will occur between the Government’s participants and the Offeror’s representatives as part of the Second Discussion, the purpose of the Second Discussion is to not only allow the Government to review the Design Concept prepared and submitted by the Offeror, but to also allow the Offeror and the Government to engage in dialogue about the submission. Such dialogue could include, but not be limited to, questions posed by the Offeror and answers provided by the Government and vice versa.

Each Offeror will have a maximum of ninety (90) minutes in which to provide a presentation and to engage in dialogue with the Government. Offerors may allot this time in any manner they so choose. For instance, if the Offeror spends the entire ninety (90) minutes giving a presentation, then there would not be any time left to engage the Government in any dialogue, which is the real purpose of the Second Discussion.

ALL of the Offeror's key personnel identified in response to Evaluation Factor 3 of the Phase II RFP MUST attend the Second Discussion in person. The Offeror may also bring additional persons to the Second Discussion (eight (8) total participants maximum). The Government reserves the right to take into consideration the following during the Second Discussion: (a) the preparedness of the key personnel; (b) the ease of interaction between the key personnel; and (c) the extent to which the key personnel are or are not aligned in terms of the overall vision for the project.

The Contracting Officer will schedule a location, date, and time for the Second Discussion. The Government will endeavor to schedule the Second Discussion within seven (7) calendar days of the date the Offeror was notified of the Phase I, shortlist.

Each Offeror shall be responsible for providing its own audiovisual, computing, and other technical equipment that it needs to use during the Second Discussions. To the extent available, and as worked out in advance with the Contracting Officer, the Government may permit each Offeror to use available equipment at the location site, such as a screen or TV.

Chapter 9, Appendix F page 1 of 2

The Government may record the Second Discussion and, if it does, will provide a copy of the recording to the Offeror within ten (10) business days after the presentation. In addition, the Offeror may decide to record the presentation with its own device. In such an instance, the Offeror must provide a copy of the recording to the Government within ten (10) business days after the presentation.

The Offeror may not leave any materials with the Government at the conclusion of the “Second Discussion.” None of the materials from the “Second Discussion” will be incorporated into the Contract. No oral statements of any kind made by the Government during the Second Discussions may be used to modify, change, or otherwise alter the Phase 2 RFP. All modifications, changes, or alterations to the Phase 2 RFP must be issued in writing by the Contracting Officer to all parties remaining in the competition.

Chapter 9, Appendix F page 2 of 2

Key Personnel (25%)

Appendix G Phase 2 Evaluation Factors

Summary Design Concept (50%)

Management Plan (15%) PLA (10%)

This Appendix establishes the mandatory Evaluation Factors for Phase 2. While these four (4) Evaluation Factors must be the same for any designbuild project, these factors must relate back to the specific scope of the project. Each unique designbuild project will need to develop a set of projectspecific considerations that will form the basis of the evaluation. For example, a new building project will use a different set of considerations from a repair and alterations project or an energy saving infrastructure replacement project.

The Project Manager, Contracting Officer, and Regional Chief Architect must jointly work together to develop the Source Selection Plan and the Phase 2 Request for Proposal submission requirements.

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: Design Concept (50%)

Description: The objective of this factor is to evaluate the extent to which the Design Concept evidences a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will be able to satisfy the:

● minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2; and ● innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a Design Excellence project

as evidenced by Design Quality.

For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” (DE) refers to GSA’s Design Excellence Program which seeks a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time. DE further seeks to commission our nation’s most talented constructors, designers, and artists to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, constructability, functionality,

Chapter 9, Appendix G page 1 of 6

and reliability; create environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees; and give contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirements: Offeror shall submit the following:

1. Submission of a Final Concept Offerors shall provide the information and generally follow the format and structure as set forth in Appendix H to the Phase 2 RFP.

2. Functional Objectives Matrix A functional objectives matrix is provided in the RFP at [INSERT LOCATION]. The Government is seeking design solutions that will optimize functional interests, consistent with the need to integrate solutions that will support all functional objectives.

The PBSP100 contains both performancebased and prescriptive requirements. A large portion of the standard specifies levels of performance, which allows Offerors to identify and implement the best strategies to meet those goals.

Four levels of performance are defined throughout the P100 in matrices, in which "baseline" performance (plus all prescriptive requirements) is the lowest permissible level. The three higherperformance levels are more rigorous and voluntary. Each project may implement any combination of performance levels, in order to prioritize performance opportunities that stem from climate, site, program, mandates, budget, and other conditions.

The Offeror must identify the attainment of achieving the functional objectives (and required performance tier) as represented by the matrix. This must take the form of a narrative report that, by system, indicates how the proposed design supports expected building performance.

The page limit for this section is twenty (including the matrix).

3. Betterments The Offeror shall include a section entitled “Betterments” in their proposal. For purposes of this evaluation factor, a “Betterment” is defined as any element, component or system, which exceeds the minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP and/or includes the addition of features or amenities that exceed the minimum Program of Requirements.

If Betterments are offered, they must: ● meet or exceed the requirements specified in the RFP; ● enhance the overall quality and performance of the project; ● be clearly identified as Betterments in the proposal;


● be identified by document and page reference to the minimum requirements to be exceeded;

● state the higher performance tier that the Betterment will provide; ● identify any potential conflicts between the Betterment and the minimum

requirements; and ● state the anticipated benefit of any such Betterment (e.g., improved

functionality).

Any Betterment not specifically identified by the Offeror in this section will not be evaluated. If the Offeror is not providing any Betterment, the Offeror must indicate “None” in this section of its submission.

Evaluators will consider the quality, impact and relative significance of each betterment, not the quantity offered.

The page limit for this section is twenty.

4. Design Quality The following list identifies characteristics of design that the Government will use to evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s Design Concept will achieve the innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a DE project. Offerors may provide an additional narrative (not to exceed five pages) to provide additional information to explain how the Design Concept provides for Design Quality.

[Each regional team should insert appropriate Design Quality considerations that are customized to the specific scope and POR for the project. Note that the list below provides examples and each item is not required on all projects. Further, the list reflects those considerations that might be used in a new building project and, therefore, would need to be tailored for use on an R&A project.

● Functionality The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept focuses on simplicity, spatial flexibility and efficiency, organizational adjacencies, and clear paths of travel.

● Performance The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept provides due consideration to areas such as energy, water and material efficiency, sustainability factors, ease of maintenance, clearly stated performance goals, materials that offer durability reflect consideration of the impacts of energy loss, and solar impact.

● Quality The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept considers the quality of materials and finishes, ceiling heights, and provides for functional design that meets primary function but also provides for secondary or tertiary


amenities.

● Architectural Design The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept considers organizing/orientation features (light courts, entry lobbies, grand stairs, and passive and active solar strategies)].

Standard for Evaluation: This standard is met when the Design Concept evidences a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will be able to meet the:

● minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2; and ● innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a Design Excellence project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following: ● The Offeror breaks down each major function into its component

principles/objectives. For example, matrices for productivity, security, and other functional objectives.

● Proposals that offer a greater probability of achieving Design Excellence as evidenced by higher Design Quality.

● The quality, impact and relative significance of the Betterments exceeds the minimum performance requirements.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: Qualifications and Past Performance of Key Personnel (25%)

Description: This factor considers the qualifications and past performance of the Offeror’s key personnel with designbuild or integrated project delivery (IDP) methods. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s key personnel will be able to successfully manage the execution of the project. Aspects of consideration include: education, experience, training, and response of the references. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is characterized as the use of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer executed a single contract with the Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for the project

Submittal: Each Offeror must submit data evidencing the key personnel’s qualifications as set forth in this evaluation factor. This may be provided in any manner that the Offeror chooses and may include, for example, a resume or curriculum vitae. There is a fifteen (15) page limit for this evaluation factor, including reference information. An Offeror may allocate the pages in any manner it chooses.

Key Personnel shall include: PrincipalInCharge, Project Manager (construction), Project Manager (design), Construction Superintendent, and Quality Control/Assurance Coordinator.


Each person submitted under this evaluation factor must have worked on at least one (1) project of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity as one of the key personnel positions described in this evaluation factor. (For purposes of this evaluation factor, the phrase “similar size, scope, and complexity” has the same meaning as that used in Evaluation Factor 1 of the Request for Qualifications.) For instance, on the prior project, the key person served in the capacity as the Project Manager, but for purposes of this evaluation factor, that same person is being proposed as the PrincipalinCharge. In such an instance, the proposed person may, depending upon the qualifications, be able to satisfy this requirement.

For each key person, the Offeror shall provide reference information for at least one (1) project of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity as one of the key personnel positions described in this evaluation factor.

Standard for Evaluation: The standard is met when the qualifications and past performance of the key personnel evidence a satisfactory probability that they will be able to perform the functions required by the positions proposed. The more relevant experience, relevant education, and relevant training the more qualified the individual will be perceived to be for the position proposed.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

● Key personnel who have worked together on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity; ● Key personnel who have experience on more than one (1) project of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity for which they will serve on the current project; ● Evidence of completion of specialized certifications, classes, or training programs from nationally recognized organizations; ● Evidence of teaching or other similar professional engagements taught by the key personnel for nationally recognized organizations.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: Management Plan (15%)

Description: This factor considers the projectspecific plan that the Offeror intends to implement in order to deliver a successful project.

Submittal: Provide a written narrative of not to exceed twenty (20) pages (inclusive of flowcharts, spreadsheets, diagrams, and any other supporting information) describing the Offeror’s plan for increasing the likelihood that the Project will be delivered ontime, within budget, and promote excellence in design and construction.

Information Required: Chapter 9, Appendix G page 5 of 6

● The plan shall identify key subcontractors for the following engineering disciplines: Mechanical, Structural, Electrical, and Commissioning Agent. For each key subcontractor, the Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the subcontractor’s experience with designbuild or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and how that experience is relevant to the work that the subcontractor will perform for the Offeror. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD has the same meaning as used in Evaluation Factor 2.

● The plan shall include a detailed description for how the Offeror will ensure the safety of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, and other individuals accessing or otherwise working at the project site during the construction phase of the Project.

● The plan shall include a project schedule that highlights key assumptions on which the schedule is based, and discusses the Offeror's strategy for sequencing the work. The narrative should also discuss any significant contingency issues that could potentially delay overall progress on the project and what actions the Offeror would propose to mitigate the impact on project completion. Provide a proposed project schedule in Gantt chart format for execution of the designbuild project from award of the contract to completion. The proposed schedule should provide sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed flow of design and construction activities for the project with the overall duration clearly shown.

● The plan shall include a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to planning, organizing and controlling the execution of the design and construction on the project. The plan should identify how the Offeror plans to implement management techniques to ensure the success and quality of the design and construction of this project.

Standard for Evaluation: The standard is met when there is a satisfactory probability that the successful implementation of the Offeror’s projectspecific plan will increase the likelihood of being able to deliver a successful project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given to plans that: ● Show the key subcontractors have prior experience working with the Offeror; ● Show other jobs in which the same, or similar, safety measures were taken and

that those measures contributed to the safety of that project; ● Show other jobs in which the same, or similar management, techniques were

used and how those management techniques contributed to the success and quality of the design and construction.

EVALUATION FACTOR 4: Project Labor Agreement (10%)

[REGION SHALL FILLIN INFORMATION] https://insite.gsa.gov/portal/category/520006 Chapter 9, Appendix G page 6 of 6

https://insite.gsa.gov/portal/category/520006

Appendix H Phase 2 Design Concept Submission Requirements

Submission Requirements

New Construction and Modernization Projects

2 Site planning and Landscape Design 2 Architectural 4 Historic Preservation 4 Mechanical 4 Structural 6 Fire Protection 6 Electrical

Alteration Projects

7 Site planning and Landscape Design 7 Architectural 8 Historic Preservation 8 Structural 9 Mechanical 9 Fire Protection 10 Electrical

Instructions to the GSA Project Team

Appendix H establishes the mandatory Design Concept Submission Requirements for Phase 2. The Project Manager, Contracting Officer, and Regional Chief Architect must jointly work together to edit these requirements to relate back to the specific scope of the project. Each unique designbuild project will need to develop a set of projectspecific requirements that will form the basis of the evaluation. For example, a new building project will use a different set of requirements from a repair and alterations project or an energy saving infrastructure replacement project or a project that must manage climate change risks due to its location, occupant mission or historic and cultural value.

Chapter 9, Appendix H page 1 of 9

New Construction & Modernization Projects

Site Planning and Landscape Design

Site Plan (At least one block around site), describing:

1 Site boundaries, approximate topography, existing buildings, setbacks, and easements

2 Building orientation with respect to path of sun

3 Building massing and relationship to massing of surrounding buildings

4 Future building expansion potential

5 Location of onsite and offsite utilities

6 Grading and drainage

7 General landscape design, showing location of major features

8 Pedestrian and vehicular circulation (include direction of traffic on adjoining streets)

9 Parking and service areas

10 Fire protection, water supplies, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access roads

Narrative 1 Description of site and landscape design final concept

2 Demolition

3 Circulation

4 Parking

5 Paving

6 Landscape design

7 Irrigation

8 Utility distribution and collection systems

9 Method for storm water detention or retention

10 Landscape maintenance concept


12 Accessibility path for the physically disabled

Architectural

1. Drawings a. Typical demolition plan(s)

b. Typical floor plan(s), showing at a minimum:

i. Work areas, lobbies, corridors, entrances, stairways, elevators, special spaces, and service spaces (with the principal spaces labeled). Dimensions for critical clearances, such as vehicle access, should be indicated.

ii. Office areas must show proposed layouts down to the office level of detail verifying the integration between the approved program and the design concept is achievable.

c. Typical Interior layouts showing:

i. Open office plan

ii. Enclosed office plan

iii. Indicate how major mechanical and electrical equipment can be removed and replaced.

d. Elevations of major building facades, showing:

i. Fenestration

ii. Exterior materials

iii. Cast shadows

e. Elevations of major interior spaces, showing:

i. Lobby/atrium

ii. Typical public elevator lobby


2. Color rendering

3. Model

5. Narrative

1. Narrative

iii. Typical courtroom elevations

f. Building sections, showing:

i. Adequate space for structural, mechanical and electrical, telecommunications, and fire protection systems

ii. Mechanical penthouses

iii. Floortofloor and other critical dimensions

iv. Labeling of most important spaces

v. Labeling of floor and roof elevations

[Project Team shall identify the number and size of photographs required]

Provide a model of the design concept with sufficient detail to convey the architectural intent of the design. [The Regional Chief Architect shall determine the scale of the model.]

4. Calculations a. Acoustical calculations, including noise transmission through:

i. Envelope

ii. Interior walls, floors (including raised floors), and ceilings

iii. Mechanical and electrical equipment

b. Heat transfer through and dew point locations in building envelope

c. Toilet fixture count analysis

d. Illumination, daylighting, and glare analysis

e. Passenger and freight elevator analysis

f. Loading dock analysis

g. Energy analysis

a. Architectural program requirements

i. Show in tabular form how the design concept meets the program requirements for each function.

ii. Description of design concept, explaining:

(1) Expansion potential

(2) Building floor efficiency

b. Location and sizes of mechanical equipment rooms for accessibility, maintenance and replacement of equipment (including cooling towers and emergency generators)

c. Conveying systems design (passenger and freight elevators, escalators)

d. Loading docks

e. Thermal, air leakage, and operational performance and maintainability of the building envelope

f. Design strategy to attain the assigned energy requirement.

g. Treatment of historic zones, if applicable

h. Operations and maintenance goals (exterior and interior window washing, relamping, etc.)

i. Sustainable design concepts (LEED strategy)

j. Vertical transportation analysis (passenger and freight elevators and escalators)

k. Code analysis

Historic Preservation

a. Existing conditions, describing:

i. Overall building size, configuration, character

ii. Project location


iii. Existing original materials and design, relevant alterations

b. Preservation design issues and prospective solutions, including:

i. Location of new work/installation: visibility, impact on historic finishes

ii. Compare options for preserving/restoring historic materials and design

iii. Identify further study required to avoid adverse effects as applicable

2. Photographs [Project Team shall identify the number and size of photographs required]

3. Drawings a. Site and typical floor plan(s)

b. Drawings (elevations, plans) showing preservation design concept.

Structural

1. Drawings a. Typical framing and foundation plan(s) of the structural system showing column locations, bay sizes, and location of expansion and seismic joints

2. Narrative a. Identification of unusual local code requirements

b. Building classification

c. Identification of region of seismicity, wind speed, etc.

d. Identification of special requirements

Mechanical

1. Drawings a. Typical demolition plans

b. HVAC Systems

i. Typical floor plan(s):

(1) Identification of typical equipment spaces for mechanical equipment

(2) Location of mechanical equipment, including size, weight, access to loading docks and freight elevators, and clearance requirements for operation, maintenance, and replacement

ii. Flow diagram(s):

(1) Air flow riser diagrams representing supply, return, outside air, and exhaust systems

(2) Water flow riser diagrams of the main mechanical systems in the mechanical room(s) and throughout the building

c. Plumbing Systems

i. Typical floor plan(s):

(1) Proposed building zoning and major piping runs

(2) Locations of typical plumbing fixtures and equipment

ii. Systems schematics and flow diagrams

2. Narrative a. HVAC

i. Indoor and outdoor design conditions for all spaces under occupied, 24hour, and unoccupied conditions

ii. Ventilation rates, dehumidification, and pressurization criteria for all spaces under occupied, 24hour, and unoccupied conditions

iii. Equipment capacities, weights, sizes, and power requirements

iv. Description of heating, cooling, ventilating, and dehumidification systems for each major functional space

v. Description of heating, cooling, ventilating, and dehumidification control strategies for typical air handling system under occupied, 24hour, and unoccupied conditions


vi. Fuel and utility requirements

b. Plumbing

i. Description of proposed plumbing systems, including domestic cold and hot water, sanitary and storm drainage, and irrigation

c. Calculations and energy and water analyses

i. Building heating and cooling load calculations

ii. Psychometric calculations for HVAC systems at full load and partial loads. (Partial loads at 50%, 25%, and unoccupied periods)

iii. Energy consumption calculations and analysis

iv. Water consumption calculations and analysis including makeup water for HVAC systems, domestic water consumption, and water consumption for irrigation

v. Fuel consumption estimates

Fire Protection

1. Drawings a. Typical Plan(s) showing

i. Equipment spaces for fire protection systems (e.g., fire pump, fire command center, etc.)

ii. Fire protection water supplies, fire hydrant locations, fire apparatus access roads, and fire lanes

2. Narrative a. Description of the building’s fire protection system including the egress system

b. Code compliance analysis

i. The design team fire protection engineer must prepare an analysis of the applicable codes and agency criteria that will govern the design of the specific project. For example, items such as, but not limited to

classification of construction and occupancy group(s), rating of structural components, fire resistance requirements, interior finish, occupant load calculations, exit calculations, identification of areas to receive automatic sprinkler systems and/or automatic detection systems, smoke control systems, etc. would be prepared by the design team fire protection engineer as necessary to provide a complete fire protection and life safety analysis for the final concept.

Electrical

1. Drawings a. Typical Plan(s) showing equipment spaces for electrical equipment to include: panels; switchboards; transformers; uninterruptible power supply (UPS); and generators

2. Narrative a. Description of electrical system

b. Describe the lighting and lighting control system

c. Special features of electrical system


Alteration Projects

Site Planning and Landscape Design

1. Drawings 1 Site boundaries, approximate topography, existing buildings, setbacks, and easements

2 Building orientation with respect to path of sun

3 Building massing and relationship to massing of surrounding buildings

4 Future building expansion potential

5 Location of onsite and offsite utilities

6 Grading and drainage

7 General landscape design, showing location of major features

8 Pedestrian and vehicular circulation

9 Parking and service areas


2. Narrative a. Existing site features

i. Topography and drainage patterns

ii. Any existing erosion conditions

iii. Wetlands and location of flood plains

iv. Circulation patterns around site

v. Site access

b. Noise/visual considerations

c. Local zoning restrictions

d. Historic preservation considerations

i. Potential archeological artifacts

e. Fire protection considerations

f. Site analysis of utilities

g. Description of site and landscape design concept

i. Proposed changes to circulation design

ii. Proposed changes to parking

iii. Proposed method for stormwater detention or retention

iv. Proposed changes to paving

Architectural

1. Drawings a. Demolition plans

b. Floor plans, elevations, and sections

c. Existing and new spaces, circulation, entrances, stairways, elevators, freight elevators, loading docks, special spaces and service spaces, and service rooms and space for mechanical, fire protection, electrical, and communication equipment. Dimensions for critical clearances, such as vehicle access, fire apparatus access, deliveries, and maintenance should be indicated.

2. Narrative a. Architectural program requirements

i. Describe how the design meets the project authorization

b. Design concept, explaining:

i. General layout

ii. Treatment of historic zones, if applicable

Historic Preservation

1. Narrative a. Existing conditions, describing:

i. Overall building size, configuration, character

ii. Project location


iii. Existing original materials and design, relevant alterations

b. Preservation design issues and prospective solutions, including:

i. Location of new work/installation: visibility, impact on historic finishes

ii. Compare options for preserving/restoring historic materials and design

2. Photographs [Project Team shall identify the number and size of photographs required]

3. Drawings a. Site Plan

b. Typical floor plans

ii. Sketches or schematic CAD drawings (elevations, plans) showing preservation design concepts.

Structural 1. Drawings

a. Typical structural plans

2. Narrative a. Description of current structural systems, state of repair, variances from present codes and available spare load capacity.

b. Identification of governing codes

c. Description of recommended changes to the structural system, addressing:

i. Structural materials, required selective demolition or alteration of existing structural elements, roof and floor framing system, means of resisting lateral loads, and connections between existing and new structural systems

Mechanical

1. Drawings

a. Typical demolition plan of piping, ductwork, equipment, and controls that are to be removed

2. Narrative a. Description of current mechanical systems and condition.

b. Description of changes to existing systems

c. Describe existing and proposed HVAC and plumbing systems, including available capacities, compliance with the criteria and requirements.

d. Identify how new systems will be integrated with existing systems

e. Provide analysis of energy conservation opportunities for the project

3. Calculations and Energy Analysis a. Provide calculations and energy analysis

Fire Protection

1. Drawings a. Typical demolition plans

i. Identify existing fire protection systems.

b. Typical floor plans, showing a minimum:

i. New fire protection systems

2. Narrative a. Fire protection program requirements

b. Description of the building’s proposed fire protection systems including modifications to the existing egress systems

c. Code statement identifying changes in building occupancy classification, occupancy group(s), fire resistance requirements, egress requirements, and so on.

Electrical 1. Narrative a. Description of changes to existing systems.


i. Describe lighting, power, and signal systems, including available capacity versus criteria, and operational characteristics.

ii. Describe code deficiencies. Identify how new systems will be tied into existing systems.

b. Describe both existing and new distribution systems within the building

i. Special power and reliability requirements should be addressed, including emergency power and UPS systems

END OF APPENDIX H



Appendix J Approximate Timeline and Detailed Process for Phase 2

Note: Project teams can, and should, work on tasks in parallel. For instance, the Phase I and Phase II solicitation documents and accompanying evaluation plans can

be drafted prior to Day 1.

Phase 2: Approximate Timeline (200 calendar days (6 ½ months) from synopsis) (this timeline based on step #6 8 week duration)

Day 1 CO posts the presolicitation notice (synopsis) to FBO Day 115 Minimum time for synopsis to be on FBO is 15 days Day 16 CO posts the Phase 1 RFQ on FBO Day 1745 Q&As based on RFQ posted to FBO Day 46 Due date for receipt of Phase 1 proposals (Offerors need

minimum 30 days to respond to RFQ) Day 4761 Evaluation panel evaluates Phase 1 proposals Day 6168 Chairperson drafts Phase 1 technical report Day 6877 Legal review and finalization of Phase 1 report Day 78 CO issues letters to firms (in/out Phase 2) Day 78 CO sends Phase 2 RFP to shortlist (not posted on FBO) Day 7981 CO reaches out to schedule future date for First Oral

Presentations Day 79126 Q&As for Phase 2 RFP (distributed to all shortlisted Offerors) Day 99106 Conduct First Oral Presentations Day 134 Due date for receipt of Phase 2 technical and price proposals Day 135 CO reaches out to schedule future date for Second Oral

Presentations Day 135149 Preliminary evaluation of technical submission (no formal

report needed from eval panel); provide list of strengths/weaknesses/deficiencies/risk to CO

Day 149157 Conduct Second Oral Presentations; panel meets to develop thoughts, additional S/W/D/R based on oral presentation (should occur same day or close as possible to oral presentation)

Day 158164 Technical evaluation team finalizes technical evaluations; chairperson drafts report for CO

Day 164167 CO reviews draft report; meets with panel and/or legal counsel to discuss

Day 167 After technical panel finalizes technical report, CO provides pricing information to panel

Days 167172 Panel provides S/W/D/R to CO based on pricing Day 175 CO sends letter to Offerors with S/W/D/R (tech and price) &

sets common cutoff date for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

Chapter 9, Appendix J, page 1 of 4

Step 2 (Days 23)

Step 3 (Q&As prior to First Oral Presentation) (Days 1First Oral Presentation)

Step 4 (Roughly 34 weeks from Issuance of RFP)

Step 5 (additional Q&As) (After First Oral Presentation, but Prior to Proposal Submission)

Step 6 (Roughly 812 weeks from Issuance of RFP)

Day 182 FPR due from Offerors Day 182189 Panel reconvenes for final evaluations Day 189196 Draft Final Eval report Day 196203 Legal review Day 203204 CO executes final decision documents Day 205 CO issues notice of award & letters to unsuccessful Offerors

Phase 2 Detailed Process

Step 1 (Day 1) The Contracting Office (CO) issues the Phase 2 Request for Proposals (RFP) to the shortlisted Offerors. The CO may issue the Phase 2 RFP in any manner the CO deems appropriate (e.g., email, overnight mail, or regular mail).

The CO should call or email each Offeror in order to schedule a date for the First Oral Presentation. If the CO places a call, the CO should send a confirmation email that includes pertinent information such as the date, time, location, and special procedures for entering the building. If such detailed information is not available at the time of the initial phone call, the CO should followup with the Offeror prior to the date of the oral presentation.

Much in the same way as any other procurement, the Phase 2 RFP should include due dates for the Offerors to submit questions. Instead of posting the answers on FedBizOpps, the CO must distribute the Q&As to all of the Offerors remaining in the competition.

The Offerors provide the First Oral Presentation to the government. The Offerors do not submit any materials in advance of the meeting. Rather, the Offerors arrive at the designated time and location with all of their presentation materials. Because the government does not evaluate these initial presentations, the evaluators do not need to take any notes. That stated, in order to ensure a record of the entire procurement process, the CO should make arrangements for recording the presentations or allow the Offerors to make a recording. If the government records the presentation, the government should provide a copy to the Offeror (and vice versa if the Offeror makes a recording).

Much in the same way as any other procurement, the Phase 2 RFP should include due dates for the Offeror to submit questions. Instead of posting the answers on FedBizOpps, the CO must distribute the Q&As to all of the Offerors remaining in the competition.

The Offerors submit technical and price proposals as instructed in the RFP.


Step 7 (Days 12 after Receipt of Proposals)

Step 8 (Days 12 after Receipt of Proposals)

Step 9 (Allow for 2 Weeks)

Step 10 (Included in Time for Step 8)

Step 11 (Included in Time for Step 8)

Step 12 (Should Occur 3 Weeks after Proposal Submission)

The CO should call or email each Offeror to schedule a date for the Second Oral Presentation. If the CO places a call, the CO should send a confirmation email that includes pertinent information such as the date, time, location, and special procedures for entering the building. If such detailed information is not available at the time of the initial phone call, the CO should followup with the Offeror prior to the date of the oral presentation.

The CO shares the technical proposals with: (a) voting members of the evaluation board; (b) Peers; and (c) SMEs. At this point, the CO must not disclose the price proposals. The CO is in charge of securing any source selection information. Accordingly, the voting and nonvoting members must abide by any instructions or limitations provided by the CO. In particular, the CO may or may not allow for the dissemination of materials via email. In addition, due to the high likelihood that the Design Concept submissions will only be viewable in person, the voting and nonvoting members may need to visit the government building.

The voting evaluation board members separately review the technical proposals. Using the worksheets provided by the CO, the voting members review and document the technical proposals for strengths; weaknesses; deficiencies; and risks (SWDR) (as explained further in the source selection plan). Also, the panel should prepare a list of any additional areas that they would like to discuss with the Offeror to further explain during the Second Oral Presentation. Concurrently with the evaluations by the voting board members, the Peers and SMEs separately review the technical proposals. Using the worksheets provided by the CO, the Peers and SMEs document the strengths; weaknesses; deficiencies; and risks (as explained further in the source selection plan). Also, the Peers and SMEs should prepare a list of any additional areas that they would like to discuss with the Offeror to further explain during the Second Oral Presentation.

Once the voting panel is finished documenting SWDR, the Peers and SMEs share their respective thoughts with the voting members. It is preferable for the Peers and SMEs to be available inperson or via telephone.

The voting evaluation board members collectively submit a written list to the CO for each Offeror documenting SWDR. The panel will also provide a list of any additional areas that they would like the Offeror to further explain or discuss during the Second Oral Presentation.

The CO conducts the Second Oral Presentation. Using the worksheets provided by the CO, the voting and nonvoting members document additional SWDR of the Offeror resulting from the Second Oral Presentation.

Step 13 (Same Day or Within few Days)


Step 14 (Allow for 1 Week)

Step 15 (Allow for ½Week)

Step 16 (Allow for 1 Week)

Step 17 (After Conclusion of Step 16)

Step 18 (Allow for 2 Weeks for Final Panel Review and Final Report Preparation)

Step 19

Step 20

Immediately or shortly after the conclusion of the Second Oral Presentations, the voting and nonvoting evaluation panel members meet to discuss and document their collective impressions. The voting panel members must document their collective view of the SWDR of each Offeror after completion of the Second Oral Presentations.

Based on the technical proposal, the Second Oral Presentation, and the collective views of the voting and nonvoting members, the SSEB Chairperson prepares and submits to the CO a detailed written technical evaluation for each Offeror.

The CO reviews the draft report and, if necessary, meets with the panel to discuss the report. Once satisfied with the report, the CO provides the voting and nonvoting members with the price proposals and instructions for evaluating price (e.g., price reasonableness, price realism, and unbalanced pricing).

Based on instructions provided by the CO, the panel reviews the pricing proposals and provides a written report to the CO.

Based on the technical and price documentation submitted by the panel, the CO sends a letter or email to each Offeror with a list of WDR and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The CO may also discuss other aspects of the Offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the CO, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. In the letter, the CO must establish a common cutoff date for the submission of Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

After receipt of the FPRs, the CO reconvenes the voting and nonvoting panel members to conduct the final technical and price evaluations. The Chairperson must submit a final written report to the CO.

The CO reviews the written report, obtains internal concurrences or approvals (as needed), and executes the final decision documents.

Issues notice of award, issues letters to the unsuccessful Offerors, and conducts debriefings (if requested).
